Democratic congresswoman shot in Arizona.

[Kasz216]

WereKitten said:

Kasz216 said:

and the pragmatic usefulness for alchohol? 

The thing that can make of those things dangerous and increases health bills?

Also, if someone actually tried to make a nuclear bomb.  I'm pretty sure the communty at large would pretty much ostrasize anyone attempting it, and any company or group stupid enough to sell such matierals to a private individual.

What do you mean with "pragmatic usefulness"? Real people want alcohol: they want it produced and they want to buy it and they want to consume it.

The pragmatic approach to regulation just means that the economic fallback and mass satisfaction are weighted against the possible risks for the community at large, instead of relying on the personal freedom of every individual to introduce chemicals of their choice in their body. Same with guns. And nukes.

The right to bear nukes sounds like artificial silliness, of course, being an hyperbole. But every so called personal freedom can be tackled at face value and brought down to the world of compromises.

That's why the two liner about almost punching people in the face is just what it is, and you had to muddle it into tying people's hand behind their back. The whole point of that idealistic stance was that almost punching is as acceptable as keeping your hand in the pocket. Saying that it's better to be able to do other things with your hands rather than being tied? Duh, really? But we were speaking about going around trying to almost punch people in the face. You see? It broke as soon as reality was brought in, and it had to go to hyperbole in the direction of freedom deprivation to say an obviety.

So...your arguement is.

If something is much more dangerous then something else... but more people want it to be legal... it should be legal.  Even if the benefits are lower.

Is that not just advocating tyranny of the majority?

Having the right to almost punch people in the face will mean people will be punched in the face accidently, however it's a better alternative then the legality of something being dependent on it's popularity.

The fact that I might like something less dangerous but be denied of it because it's less popular is absurd and illogical. 

This is why the US has the Bill of Rights... and why it is so hard to change  to prevent tyranny of the majority.  Though often people do wiggle their way around it, like finding a way to make drugs illegal when it was originally held that any drug was a constiutional right.  (See alchohol prohibition needing a constituional ammendment.)